[Antrax]

---

[hotShot]

West opened 1NT and super-accepted so over 4♦ he has no extras left to justify not bidding 4♠.
4NT by West is an overbid.

[aguahombre]

If that is a max with a spade honor for West, then East has to tuck in.

Apparently they have no real agreements.

[nigel_k]

East 80%.

I don't agree with either player's actions but East's 4♦ was the most clearly wrong action and contributed most to reaching the poor slam. The slam just needs too much given East's hand and the fact his only cue bid is a shortage makes it worse, because partner will expect a top honour instead and misevaluate. It looks like this is what happened. If West could have superaccepted with 2NT allowing East to splinter in diamonds it might have stopped lower. Obviously West could have cue bid 4♥ instead of using Blackwood but I doubt he can reasonably stop short of slam once East bid 4♦.

[Antrax]

2NT would've been superaccept with max and 3 card ♠ support with 2 honors. We don't have the agreement that 4♦ after that is shortness.
Sitting east, my thinking was that I'm maximum for a passed hand with 5 spades. Is shortness not attractive enough to cue bid?

[hotShot]

Antrax, on 2011-April-11, 01:49, said:

2NT would've been superaccept with max and 3 card ♠ support with 2 honors. We don't have the agreement that 4♦ after that is shortness.
Sitting east, my thinking was that I'm maximum for a passed hand with 5 spades. Is shortness not attractive enough to cue bid?

I don't agree with nigel_k, 4♦ was a resonable bid. You are strong enough for game and close to slam if partner has no wasted values in ♦.
West would bid no different if he had the ♠Q instead of the ♦J.
Because of your 4♦ bid, West now knows that his ♦J is a wasted value, and his NT opening showing 15-17 is no longer a maximum without that J.

I think West should bid 4♠ and end the auction as East is a passed hand, but West could bid 4♥ to show the ace and East than would have to bid 4♠ and the auction would be over.

[Hanoi5]

I suppose you could blame the system. Is East compelled to cue-bid in this situation? He has a minimum. Is 4♦ the first available cue-bid or a splinter? If West knows the pair has a club to lose he gambled on trumps being 2-2 (or guessing the Queen).

Quote

Sitting east, my thinking was that I'm maximum for a passed hand with 5 spades. Is shortness not attractive enough to cue bid?

If minors were reversed in opener the slam is much better: ♠'s Hx-Hx, QJ-xx or Hxx-H + the club finesse/situation, that's why distinguishing between a splinter and a cue-bid is important. Also, if East holds ♦K the slam looks even better.

[kenrexford]

Did the slam make, out of curiosity?

[Antrax]

No, north had QJxx♠ and the Q♥ didn't drop.

Quote

I suppose you could blame the system. Is East compelled to cue-bid in this situation?

No, I just thought my hand is good enough. Is there any passed hand that would be worth looking for slam here?

[mike777]

75% east 25% west.


Much prefer 3c to 3s as superaccept, cuebid. Now you have much more room to explore. And 4nt was a bit too much given east is a passed hand.
But I hated 4d stiff the most, cuebid length with real values.
If east simply rebids 4s then you have no problems with this deal. game before slam.

[aguahombre]

Antrax, on 2011-April-11, 07:03, said:

Is there any passed hand that would be worth looking for slam here?

Maybe not (Yikes, here come the perfect hypotheticals). If the given hand had just the Quacks reversed (heart queen and club jack), it seems a reasonable slam.

But it is probably a winning idea to use the super-accept opposite a transfer (passed hand or not) to get to game opposite a transfer which might be just short of an invite --or to prepare for competition by getting to the law-level --not to squeak out a slam on a perfect 26 count.

Side notes:
- if having a trump honor is really part of the agreement, West should stick with the agreement (I don't think it should be required, though.)
- With no real rebid problems and this 4-2-5-2 hand, IMO it is questionable whether to open 1D or 1NT if partner were not a passed hand; more attractive opposite a passed hand.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

nigel_k, on 2011-April-11, 01:22, said:

East 80%.

..... East's 4♦ was the most clearly wrong action and contributed most to reaching the poor slam. ........ Obviously West could have cue bid 4♥ instead of using Blackwood but I doubt he can reasonably stop short of slam once East bid 4♦.

I agree with Nigel...
but I'd say 100% East....without so much as a King in an outside suit

[Phil]

1st - I like 1N - the hand isn't a classic NT shape, and we do have a rebid if we open 1♦, but our doubletons are strong so WD.

This discussion about "West cannot cue, because he has 'shown' his hand with 3♠ is hogwash. West is full of controls and has a side 5 bagger. Unfortunately, West still has those strong doubletons, but with T9xx Ax AKJxx Ax, no one would open 1N (I hope).

I think 4♦ is very reasonable. I have the trump AK + shortness + some potentially useful side cards. I think you can make a sensible argument that 4♦ is specifically shortness, using 3N as serious (recognizing these are apples and oranges).

Once 4♦ hits the table, West knows there is a club loser, so pard needs the AK-6th (but in this case partner bids Texas or is good enough to take control) or the trump AKQxx (still pushing this to the 5 level, or AKxxx + ♥Qxx. The latter seems like the best bet, but its a VERY specific holding, since with 5♠ / 4♥, we'd Stayman. Even then, we have to handle the 4th round of clubs, or get the 5th diamond going.

What about ♠AK + ♦K? - slam may not be good with these cards, depending on how many club losers we have to cover. If pard has 5=3=2=3, we need to bring down the ♦Q in 3 rounds, and with 5=3=3=2, we need a hook (it could be 2-way however).

My conclusion is that West can't unilaterally bid 4N. 4♥ (last train) seems perfect saying "I have the club control you are missing, but I cannot unilaterally bid 4N".

[Phil]

By the way, I've never liked the idea of 'bergen' superaccepts, because:

1. You preempt yourself to the 3 level unnecessarily when the opponents weren't going to push you when you have a minimum hand. Its much better to pass and if they balance, you'll get some information about how to play the hand. If you are going to play these, play them when our suit is hearts, but not spades.

2. You are forced to reveal a feature of Opener's hand 'along the way' to show a max. There are better methods to hide this, like playing 1N - 2♥ - 2N as a super accept, and 3♣ asks - 3♦, 3♥ and 3♠ all show a relevant in the a, b and c suits. However, you introduce all kinds of unnecessary lead-directing doubles.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2011-April-11, 09:51, said:

2. You are forced to reveal a feature of Opener's hand 'along the way' to show a max. There are better methods to hide this, like playing 1N - 2♥ - 2N as a super accept, and 3♣ asks - 3♦, 3♥ and 3♠ all show a relevant in the a, b and c suits. However, you introduce all kinds of unnecessary lead-directing doubles.

Yep. But unnecessarily revealing a feature of opener's hand is only a small part of it.

M+1 super-acceptances are vital if playing Walsh relays, where the heart xfer might not be real.
M+1 after a transfer to spades, though not vital, is certainly wise --saving room if the auction has turned slammish.

[Antrax]

Not sure what bergen superaccepts are. Partner taught me a structure where you can superaccept with 3M if you have good support (four cards and an honor - not sure why that's the requirement, I'm not at the stage where I question agreements yet), 2NT with good three-card support, and 3 anything else shows four-card support, max and doubleton in the bid suit. Opposite a 3♣ superaccept I would've signed off in game since I know my clubs aren't very useful, and I sure hope P won't show a doubleton of AK.
Thanks everyone. As a follow-up question, would the east's bidding have been okay with more distribution? (let's say turn the diamond into a sixth spade) Or is it just too chancy to hope the hands will mesh well enough?

[quiddity]

Phil, on 2011-April-11, 09:46, said:

What about ♠AK + ♦K? - slam may not be good with these cards, depending on how many club losers we have to cover. If pard has 5=3=2=3, we need to bring down the ♦Q in 3 rounds, and with 5=3=3=2, we need a hook (it could be 2-way however).

If pard is 5=3=2=3 with those cards then we just need spades to break. 5 trumps, 3 round-suit tricks, 2 round-suit ruffs, and the AK of diamonds.

[kenrexford]

quiddity, on 2011-April-11, 11:10, said:

If pard is 5=3=2=3 with those cards then we just need spades to break. 5 trumps, 3 round-suit tricks, 2 round-suit ruffs, and the AK of diamonds.

As it is, the slam makes on the actual layout if spades split 2-2 and diamond split 4-3, or if the diamond Queen is stiff or doubleton. I mean, this is not the worst slam ever.

[nigel_k]

The thing about superaccepts is that the 1NT opener is already very well defined and responder will be able to place the contract over 90% of the time opposite any superaccept. So it's better to just superaccept with the first step all the time (2♠ over a 2♦ transfer and 2NT over a 2♠ transfer). This avoids providing helpful information to the defence on the 90% of hands where responder doesn't need to know, and if responder does want to explore further you have only lost one step and now it is dummy, not declarer that will be describing their hand.

I also want to emphasize that cue bidding a shortage is very dangerous when there is serious doubt about whether slam will have enough tricks and you need to evaluate how the hands fit. The reason is that a singleton is very different from something like Kxx and fits well opposite different hands. The best way to show a singleton is to agree trumps and then splinter. Or if you clearly have enough tricks for slam and just need all suits controlled, obviously cue bidding a singleton is fine then too.

For example, the slam would be much better if you had something like AKxxx xxx Kx xxx. On the other hand, if opener had Qxxx AK10 xxx AKx, it would be a decent slam opposite your actual hand but a terrible one when you have the hand with the ♦K.

[1eyedjack]

I think that cue bidding a shortage is not so bad provided that it is unambiguously a shortage.
I further think that the presence and location of the shortage is probably the most important feature that responder can show if showing slam interest.
I further think that a passed hand responder cannot really have a slam try without the presence of a shortage.
I further agree that East cannot have much more than he had, for a passed hand.
In conclusion I do not blame East for 4D.

I also think that it is not unreasonable for West to make a co-operative slam try. It is just unreasonable for him unilaterally to commit to slam opposite the 4D bid, purely on the basis that the partnership is not missing two "aces". I would be slightly uncomfortable playing in 5S but not desperately so. Had they stopped in 5 I probably would have found it hard to assign much blame.

But on balance i blame West, the way things went.